Thread: Monopole problem of Big Bang

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You totally lost me at the cut up paper strips into infinity symbols and calling them positive or negative... I mean, I think of electricity as positive and negative and it kinda threw me off...

Plus, It's late and I'm still working over here so I'm just going to throw some links and bow out...

Magnetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magnetic field of the Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry about that old boy, This is from the Wikipedia page on magnetic fields... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

Electric and magnetic fields: different aspects of the same phenomenon

Main article: Relativistic electromagnetism

According to the special theory of relativity, the partition of the electromagnetic force into separate electric and magnetic components is not fundamental, but varies with the observational frame of reference: An electric force perceived by one observer may be perceived by another (in a different frame of reference) as a magnetic force, or a mixture of electric and magnetic forces.

Formally, special relativity combines the electric and magnetic fields into a rank-2 tensor, called the electromagnetic tensor. Changing reference frames mixes these components. This is analogous to the way that special relativity mixes space and time into spacetime, and mass, momentum and energy into four-momentum.

This I think is where I might be confusing people, if that is what my musings have done. I guess I am having trouble seeing the big picture and distinguishing between the electric and magnetic aspects of this phenomena. I guess I'm just looking at it from a different frame of reference, or something like what the above states. Lord knows I am just trying to make some sense of all the things I find myself reading.

I also came across this reference, though it is not about monopoles, electric or magnetic, but I found it interesting (what I could grasp that is) and thought I would share it anyway:

NASA - Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

...

This I think is where I might be confusing people, if that is what my musings have done. I guess I am having trouble seeing the big picture and distinguishing between the electric and magnetic aspects of this phenomena. ...

Rather than musing, you should ask your question straight out. You might begin by clarifying exactly what is in the big picture that you are trying to see. You might also explicitly state which phenomena are you trying to distinguish between the electric and magnetic aspects of.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Rather than musing, you should ask your question straight out. You might begin by clarifying exactly what is in the big picture that you are trying to see. You might also explicitly state which phenomena are you trying to distinguish between the electric and magnetic aspects of.

Good point MisterMe. My question then would be, What exactly is the difference between the magnetic and electric fields and are they indeed separate phemonema? This is what I am trying to understand and see, for currently I am having trouble making the separation of the two. I believe that is what you are trying to help me understand, I just can't seem to get it though. It just seems too interconnected in my mind.

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

Good point MisterMe. My question then would be, What exactly is the difference between the magnetic and electric fields and are they indeed separate phemonema? This is what I am trying to understand and see, for currently I am having trouble making the separation of the two. I believe that is what you are trying to help me understand, I just can't seem to get it though. It just seems too interconnected in my mind.

It would be a mistake to try too hard to separate the electric and magnetic field. In earlier posts, I referred to them as the electromagnetic field because the two are inextricably connected.

That said, classical electrodynamics give the static electric charge as the source of static electric field. Steady currents produce static magnetic fields. Currents are, of course, charges in motion. Thus, a single moving charge produces a magnetic field as well as an electric field. Time-varying electric fields produce magnetic fields. Time-varying magnetic fields produce electric fields.

Natural materials are electrically neutral. Some materials can, however, be charged by mechanically stripping or adding loosely-bound electrons. This is often done by rubbing an insulator with cloth or fur. Materials may be naturally magnetic if their atoms have unpaired electrons in their outer shell. In an earlier post, I explained that a magnetic moment can be created by circulating a current in a loop of wire. The magnetic dipole moment is given by , where is the magnetic moment, is the number of loops, is the current, and is the area of the loop.

The total magnetic moment per unit volume is the magnetization:

where is the magnetization field, is the number of magnetic atoms, is the average magnetic moment, and is the volume. Absent an external magnetic field, the magnetic field within a magnetic material is given by . The magnetic field outside the material is proportional to .

Each electron has a magnetic dipole moment. This dipole moment is an artifact of special relativity. Pauli cobbled intrinsic spin to the Schrödinger equation. However, Dirac showed that this was a natural result of linearizing the Klein-Gordson wave equation. A spinning extended charge has a magnetic moment. An electron, however, is considered to be a point particle. Its circulation area is zero. Therefore the spin to which the electron is subject is part of the spacetime that it occupies.

Let us not forget electromagnetic waves. In the case of -waves, the electric and magnetic fields are effectively equal [depending on the units]. The electric and magnetic fields make equal contributions to the energy of the waves.

In your post above, you correctly posted that the electric and magnetic fields are manifestations of the same field. They are linked like space and time, like momentum, energy, and mass. The components of the electric and magnetic fields are elements of the Rank-2 electromagnetic tensor. If we add magnetic monopoles as a source, then the new formulation of the electromagnetic tensor should look the same as it does now.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

It would be a mistake to try too hard to separate the electric and magnetic field. In earlier posts, I referred to them as the electromagnetic field because the two are inextricably connected.

O.K. That is what I thought, thank you for the clarification.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

That said, classical electrodynamics give the static electric charge as the source of static electric field. Steady currents produce static magnetic fields. Currents are, of course, charges in motion. Thus, a single moving charge produces a magnetic field as well as an electric field. Time-varying electric fields produce magnetic fields. Time-varying magnetic fields produce electric fields.

I do appreciate your trying to help me grasp these basics which I should probably already know, I'm sure. So you say "static" electric charge, as in static electricity I presume. In the sense of a stationary potential of electric charge waiting to interact with something else conductive. Is that right? So am I correct in my understanding that even in a static state the charge is still moving in some way, generating a field or field potential in some sort of closed loop or something(sorry for my lack of technical terminology) or do I have this concept wrong?

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Natural materials are electrically neutral. Some materials can, however, be charged by mechanically stripping or adding loosely-bound electrons. This is often done by rubbing an insulator with cloth or fur. Materials may be naturally magnetic if their atoms have unpaired electrons in their outer shell. In an earlier post, I explained that a magnetic moment can be created by circulating a current in a loop of wire. The magnetic dipole moment is given by , where is the magnetic moment, is the number of loops, is the current, and is the area of the loop.

Hmm....so then, what does this have to do with Ionization, anything? Sounds like it to me, but again, my ignorance can be staggering at times, though I am eager to understand more clearly. I'm sure I could find much of this on my own and not have to bother you or anyone, but I sincerely do appreciate the guidance. And if you don't mind too much can you try to clarify the definiton of what the term magnetic moment means? I am having a little trouble nailing the term down in a mechanical way.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

The total magnetic moment per unit volume is the magnetization:

where is the magnetization field, is the number of magnetic atoms, is the average magnetic moment, and is the volume. Absent an external magnetic field, the magnetic field within a magnetic material is given by . The magnetic field outside the material is proportional to .

Neverfly is right, I really need to get a better grasp and understanding of mathematics if I expect to really understand. A question if I may, by looking at the first equation you share am I getting this right, that an increasing number of loops (N) intensifies or increases in some way this magnetic moment even when I and A remain constant or are there some sort of naturally occuring ratios of these three values or some fixed sense of proportion to them?

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Each electron has a magnetic dipole moment. This dipole moment is an artifact of special relativity. Pauli added cobbled intrinsic spin to the Schrödinger equation. However, Dirac showed that this was a natural result of linearizing the Klein-Gordson wave equation. A spinning extended charge has a magnetic moment. An electron, however, is considered to be a point particle. Its circulation area is zero. Therefore the spin to which the electron is subject is part of the spacetime that it occupies.

Hmm....I will have to mull this part over a bit more than the others. I try to envision what this spin quality would look like, maybe that is the wrong approach, but as I have stated repeatedly, I am much more mechanical oriented. Can or does this spin quality have anything to do with a reversal of polarity in any context?

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Let us not forget electromagnetic waves. In the case of -waves, the electric and magnetic fields are effectively equal [depending on the units]. The electric and magnetic fields make equal contributions to the energy of the waves.

So correct me if I am wrong here, the plus (positive) symbol is associated with the magnetic field and the minus (negative) sign is associated with the electric field? If so, what is the difference between the symbols in wave and particle considerations? How does the positive quality of an EM wave differ from a proton's positive quality and the negative from an electron's negative quality?

Originally Posted by MisterMe

In your post above, you correctly posted that the electric and magnetic fields are manifestations of the same field. They are linked like space and time, like momentum, energy, and mass. The components of the electric and magnetic fields are elements of the Rank-2 electromagnetic tensor. If we add magnetic monopoles as a source, then the new formulation of the electromagnetic tensor should look the same as it does now.

You mean I actually got something right for a change? LOL Well, I give you guys most of the credit for all your helpful input. I all too often feel like that annoying little kid who keeps asking "WHY?" to every answer you give him. I truly appreciate the patience and willingness MisterMe to help illuminate my understanding.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

In this context, a monopole is a magnetic monopole. A magnetic monopole is an isolated magnetic charge in much the same way as a proton is an isolated positive electric charge and an electron is an isolated negative electric charge. Quarks are also have isolated charge as do ions, dust particles, and such like. Isolated magnetic charges would be "north" poles without an accompanying "south" pole or vice versa. Dirac deduced that magnetic monopoles necessitate quantized electric charges. Indeed, electric charge is quantized. However, quantized electric charge does not require the existence of monopoles.

Indeed, monopoles have never been shown to exist. Neither classical electrodynamics nor quantum electrodynamics require the existence of monopoles. I am aware of no problem in physics that monopoles will solve. The search for magnetic monopoles is driven by the naïve search for symmetry in Maxwell's equations. It is a trivial matter to add monopole charge density and magnetic current density to formulate a consistent version of Maxwell's equations plus the Lorentz force on magnetic monopoles and current. However, the relativistic formulation of the Maxwell's equations is in terms of tensor algebra and calculus.

This is where monopole formulations get hairy. An electric monopole or charge is known as a "scalar" particle. The mirror image of a scalar particle has the same sign as the original. A magnetic monopole must be a "pseudoscalar" particle. The mirror image of a monopole must have the opposite sign of the original. This means that the mirror image of a "north" monopole must be a "south" monopole and vise versa.

This creates a contradiction. My understanding of monopoles is that in their simplest form, they are symmetric. However, it is impossible for a magnetic monopole to be symmetric. This would appear to preclude the possibility of magnetic monopoles.

Are you by chance thinking 2 dimensiionally? Last I heard they were theorizing 11 dimensions that's alot more planes to be reflective in. And think about this why 11?

Originally Posted by MisterMe

It would be a mistake to try too hard to separate the electric and magnetic field. In earlier posts, I referred to them as the electromagnetic field because the two are inextricably connected.

Wasn't it Feynman that said "Electricity is in reality a relativistic effect of Magnetism"?